Blockchain Case Studies in Supply Chain Visibility

Citation for published version:
Rogerson, M & Parry, G 2020, 'Blockchain: case studies in supply chain visibility', Supply Chain Management,
vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 601-614. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-08-2019-0300
DOI:
10.1108/SCM-08-2019-0300
Publication date:
2020
Document Version
Peer reviewed version
Link to publication
Publisher Rights
CC BY-NC
University of Bath
Alternative formats
If you require this document in an alternative format, please contact:
openaccess@bath.ac.uk
General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners
and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.
Take down policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately
and investigate your claim.
Download date: 14. Mar. 2024

up
pl Supply Chain Management: an International Journal
yC
ha
in
Blockchain: case studies in food supply chain visibility
M
Journal: Supply Chain Management: an International Journal
Manuscript ID SCM-08-2019-0300.R2
an
Manuscript Type: Original Manuscript
Supply-chain management, Supply Chain Vulnerability, Supply risk,

Keywords:
ag
Information transparency, Trust, Food security
em
en
t: a
nI
nt
er
na
tio
na
lJ
ou
nar
Page 1 of 33 Supply Chain Management: an International Journal
up
1
2
p
3 Blockchain: case studies in food supply chain visibility
4
ly
5
6 Abstract
7
Ch
8 Purpose: This paper investigates how blockchain has moved beyond cryptocurrencies and is being
9
10 deployed to enhance visibility and trust in supply chains; its limitations, and potential impact.
ain
11
12 Approach: Qualitative analysis undertaken via case studies drawn from food companies using semi-
13
14 structured interviews.
15
Ma
16 Findings: Blockchain is demonstrated as an enabler of visibility in supply chains. Applications at scale
17
18 are most likely for products where the end consumer is prepared to pay the premium currently
19
required to fund the technology, e.g. baby food. Challenges remain in four areas: trust of the
na
20
21 technology; human error and fraud at the boundaries; governance; consumer data access and
22
23 willingness to pay.
ge
24
25 Research implications and limitations: The paper shows that blockchain can be utilised as part of a
26
me
27 system generating visibility and trust in supply chains. Research directs academic attention to issues
28
29 that remain to be addressed. The challenges pertaining to the technology itself we believe to be
30 generalisable; those specific to the food industry may not hold elsewhere.
31
nt
32
33 Practical implications: From live case studies we provide empirical evidence that blockchain
:a
34 provides visibility of exchanges and reliable data in fully-digitised supply chains. This provides
35
36 provenance and guards against counterfeit goods. However, firms will need to work to gain
nI
37
38 consumer buy-in for the technology following repeated past claims of trustworthiness.
39
40 Originality: This paper provides primary evidence from blockchain use cases ‘in the wild’. The
nt
41
42 exploratory case studies examine application of blockchain for supply chain visibility.
ern
43
44 Keywords: blockchain for good, research4good, blockchain, supply chains, supply chain visibility
45
46
47
ati
48
49 1. Introduction
50
on
51 The growing understanding of blockchain as a tool to enhance supply chain visibility has led to a
52
53 body of work falling into two categories: an academic literature conceptualizing blockchain for
54
supply chain visibility (e.g. Saberi et al. 2019; Madhwal and Panfilov 2017; Tian 2018), and an
al
55
56 industry literature providing examples of trial applications (e.g. Verhagen and Welsh 2017; IBM
57
Jo
58 2017; Ross 2017). The academic literature has few empirical studies of live cases. Three exemplar
59
papers stand out: McConaghy et al.’s (2017) study of blockchain’s implementation for rights
60
ur
na
l
Supply Chain Management: an International Journal Page 2 of 33
up
1
2
p
3 management in digital art; and studies by Motta et al. (at press) and Kshetri (2018), which use
4
ly
5 archival material rather than primary research. This paper is thus among the earliest case studies of
6
7 blockchain’s use as a tool providing visibility in supply chains and the challenges that remain.
Ch
8
9 Product traceability has long been an issue in supply chain management (SCM), and uses include
10
mitigating risks of tainted food (Pouliot and Sumner 2012), counterfeit luxury goods (Guercini and
ain
11
12 Runfola 2009), and labour abuses (Jones et al. 2019). Technology solutions including RFID tags have
13
14 been applied successfully in a number of cases, including in the food industry (Attaran 2007). The
15
increasing complexity of supply chains continues to raise issues and the search for reliable
Ma
16
17 technological solutions to offer assurances on data quality and enhanced data security persists
18
19 (Parry and Turner 2006).
na
20
21
Blockchain, widely-known as the technology underpinning Bitcoin (Kiviat 2015), a cryptocurrency
22
23 renowned for data security, has recently become the subject of tests in other capacities, including in
ge
24
25 community-owned green energy networks (Mengelkamp et al. 2018), underpinning emerging
26
economy land registries (Lemieux 2016), and smart contracts (Nugent et al. 2016; Nofer et al. 2017).
me
27
28 Increasing uses are now being found for blockchain in supply chains (Abeyratne and Monfared
29
30 2016).
31
nt
32 This paper investigates how blockchain may provide visibility for SCM. Valid use cases already exist
33
that create authenticity and traceability by storing supply chain data and making it difficult to
:a
34
35
change (Galvez et al. 2018). The proposed benefits of applications suggest that blockchain can
36
nI
37 enable enhanced visibility through deepened connections with digitised supply chains (Kharlamov
38
39 and Parry 2018), reduced potential for human error and fraud (Cole et al. 2019), and creating trust in
40
nt
41
product veracity (Kamath 2018). It is this public trust of products, particularly foods, which Babich
42 and Hilary (2019) highlight as a driver of adoption by firms such as Walmart, because of the volume
ern
43
44 of adulterations and their potential harm.
45
46 The paper presents four cases studies of blockchain use for agriculture, fishing, wine, and infant
47
ati
48 formula. These cases address specific problems currently faced in food supply chains - which are
49
50 particularly acute given the importance of risks and perishability of the products (Diabat et al. 2012)
on
51 - the suitability of blockchain in each case, application of the technology, and residual issues are
52
53 observed. We provide a rationale for blockchain adoption, a set of optimal preconditions, and
54
al
55 highlight areas in which blockchain is unlikely to be the panacea hoped for by many.
56
57
Jo
58
59
60
ur
na
l
up
1
2
p
3 The paper begins with a review of the current literature. The methodology used is explained before
4
ly
5 the detail of the four use cases. Finally the practical implications for supply chain visibility (SCV) are
6
7 discussed and suggestions for future work.
Ch
8
9
10
ain
11 2. Literature review
12
13
14 2.1 Need for visibility in supply chains
15
Ma
16 Efficient supply chains require managers to have the ability to process the enormous volume of data
17
18 generated in order to make decisions (Williams et al. 2013). Traditional supply chain centralisation
19 has not offered that possibility to all parties because centralisation has created information
na
20
21 asymmetry (Treiblmaier 2018), typically favouring larger organisations or IT systems implementers,
22
23 preventing optimisation of supply chain efficiency (Michalski et al. 2018).
ge
24
25 Combatting data fragmentation requires collaboration along the whole supply chain, the ultimate
26
me
27 goal of which has become SCV (Samaranayake 2005). SCV can be described as enabling “the identity,
28
location and status of entities transiting the supply chain, captured in timely messages about events,
29
30 along with the planned and actual dates/times for these events” (Francis 2008). Access to the
31
nt
32 accurate, timely, usable information that characterise SCV offers a range of benefits (Parry et al.
33
2016). Supply chain professionals consider visibility an important enabler of inter-company
:a
34
35 collaboration (Francis 2008), allowing for integration between tiers up to and including the customer
36
(Schoenherr and Swink 2012), enhancing trust (Johnson et al. 2013), and increasing efficiency
nI
37
38
(Bartlett et al. 2007). Visibility thereby facilitates action in the supply chain (Delen et al. 2009) and
39
40
nt
reduces decision risk (Christopher and Lee 2004). This improves overall supply chain performance as
41
42 it provides firms “capabilities to reconfigure their supply chains and create strategic value” (Wei and
ern
43
44
Wang 2010, p.245).
45
46 Many aspects of successful SCM, including cost, inventory management, and physical logistics rely
47
ati
48 on visibility (Kwon and Kim 2018). Efficient use and, crucially, sharing information with suppliers
49 (Kaipia and Hartiala 2006) can deliver benefits including the responsiveness of supply chain partners
50
on
51 (Kim et al. 2006), enhanced measurement (Acquaye et al. 2014) and design of key metrics (Caridi et
52
53 al. 2013), improved productivity, customer service, and overall firm performance (Frohlich and
54 Westbrook 2001). This has led to the deployment of a succession of technologies aimed at creating
al
55
56 greater visibility along the value chain. Early systems automated the bill of materials (Molla and
57
Jo
58 Bhalla 2006), then extended to include materials resource planning (Parry et al. 2003). In the early
59 2000s digital visibility expanded to include order further functions such as product and delivery
60
ur
na
l
up
1
2
p
3 management via enterprise resource planning (ERP) (Parry and Graves 2008) enterprise resource
4
ly
5 management (ERM) (Chuang and Shaw 2008), and customer resource management (CRM) (Lambert
6
7 and Schwieterman 2012).
Ch
8
9 The use of such systems necessitates a link between physical objects and the digital world. Barcodes
10
have become prevalent due to their low cost and simplicity (Apiyo and Kiarie 2018). Although more
ain
11
12 costly, radio frequency identification (RFID) tagging of goods can now offer organisations real-time
13
14 data at the individual product item level (Wang et al. 2017). As Spekman and Sweeney II (2006,
15
p.736) highlight early in the technology’s lifecycle, “visibility in materials flow… among all supply
Ma
16
17 chain members is improved and the accuracy of the information shared is greatly enhanced.” As
18
19 technology has developed, the Internet of Things (IoT) has been conceived as a way of connecting
na
20
21 devices to allow greater visibility of processes along the entire supply chain and further minimise of
22
human error (Majeed and Rupasinghe 2017; Parry et al. 2016). More recently, some firms have
23
ge
24 begun to adopt quick response (QR)-coding of items in order to balance the benefits of tracking with
25
26 reduced costs (Parreño-Marchante et al. 2014).
me
27
28 Demand for technologies which allow stakeholders to see the dynamics of supply processes rather
29
30 than simply tracing where and when a process occurred, points to visibility being increasingly
31
nt
embraced in SCM. Traceability enhances product security and process controls (Musa et al. 2014),
32
33 but does not address more fundamental risks. Traceability is passive, following a product’s journey
:a
34
35 through the nodes of a supply chain (Jansen-Vullers et al. 2003), but not visibility of what happens at
36
those points (Kwon and Kim 2018). Since supply chain risk is found in materials used
nI
37
38 (Mohammaddust et al. 2017), processes employed (Ciccullo et al. 2018), and people engaged (Gold
39
40 et al. 2015), visibility offers what traceability cannot. Supply chain managers are unable to see what
nt
41
42
is done at each node, by whom, and what the impacts are (Abeyratne and Monfared 2016).
ern
43 Traceability does not provide data giving managers the capability act (Parry et al. 2016).
44
45
46 2.2 Barriers to adoption of technologies
47
ati
48 Information technology innovation is influenced by ideas relating to potential transformative effects

49
50 shaped by social context (Avgerou and Bonina 2019). Given the novelty of blockchain as a SCM
on
51 solution it is likely to be subject to similar factors that delayed or prevented the adoption of previous
52
53 technologies. With regard to uptake of the internet as a SCM tool, Tarofder, Azam and Jalal (2017)
54
al
55 find a lack of senior management support, budget concerns, and insufficient competitive pressure
56 account for wariness. A lack of executive support is highlighted as potentially terminal to new
57
Jo
58 technology adoption (Asare et al. 2016), though management are often aware of the need for new
59
60 technologies but uncertain about the impact of its adoption on workforces (Fawcett et al. 2008).
ur
na
l
up
1
2
p
3 Balocco et al. (2011) investigate uptake of RFID, a precursor and complementary solution for
4
ly
5 blockchain, finding inter-firm factors, including issues of profit-sharing, more important barriers,
6
7 though elsewhere complexity and cost are found to be key (Chuang and Shaw 2008). Hardt, Flett and
Ch
8 Howell (2017) assert that issues of cost, inter-firm trust, and technical aspects are at the forefront of
9
10 a lag in uptake of QR codes. Interestingly, in one of the only studies on blockchain adoption to date,
ain
11
12 Saberi et al. (2019) find a combination of these factors, and the immaturity of the technology itself,
13 to be obstacles to adoption at the operational level. Van Hoek (2019) discovers that the costs and
14
15 benefits of the technology are poorly understood at executive level, preventing firms from
Ma
16
17 employing the technology.
18
19 2.3 What is a blockchain and what are its benefits?
na
20
21
Blockchain is an emergent technology which we can describe in its most basic form as a shared list
22
23 that is difficult to change. Blockchain is the specific term for the Bitcoin variant of distributed ledger
ge
24
25 technology (DLT), but has come into common parlance to mean DLT. There are a number of different
26
DLT, including Ethereum, a global, distributed applications platform suited to the deployment of
me
27
28 smart contracts (Zheng et al. 2018), executed automatically when conditions are proven to have
29
30 been met on a blockchain-enabled system (Abeyratne and Monfared 2016). A full discussion of DLT
31
nt
and their types is outside the scope of this paper; reviews exist elsewhere (e.g. Mueller-Bloch et al.
32
33 2019). Blockchain has broadly been used according to one of three models: public, private and
:a
34
35 consortium.
36
nI
37 A public blockchain is created as a decentralised network where each participant - or node - records
38
39 transactions on a public ledger. Sets of transactions accumulate and are placed into a group - or
40
nt
41
‘block’ - which is put into an algorithm to generate a unique hash code related to that dataset at a
42 particular point in time. This hash code forms the first piece of data in the next set of transactions
ern
43
44 forming the next block. As transactions accumulate, the list grows as blocks are added ‘forming a
45
46 chain’ [figure 1] (McConaghy et al. 2017).
47
ati
48
49 XXXXX Bring in Figure 1 around here XXXXX
50
on
51
52
Private blockchains are operated by one organisation, which grants limited visibility rights to chosen
53
54 parties (Wang, Hugh Han, et al. 2019). Consortium blockchains are similar but have multiple rather
al
55
56 than a single owner (Lin and Liao 2017). Public blockchains enable any “miner” (creator of a block)
57
Jo
58
access to the blockchain, with anyone able to read its contents (Guo and Liang 2016), a form often
59 referred to as ‘permissionless’ (McGinn et al. 2018). Private and consortium blockchains, limited in
60
ur
na
l
up
1
2
p
3 the number of nodes by permissions granted by the owner(s), restrict visibility at the cost of a small
4
ly
5 degree of immutability (Kshetri 2018), and an attack on the system would only need to breach the
6
7 few systems on the blockchain in order to corrupt the data. These ‘permissioned’ blockchains accept
Ch
8 additional blocks onto the blockchain through consensus mechanisms (Bergman et al. 2019). Public
9
10 blockchains operate a ‘proof of work’ (PoW) mechanism in which a node adding a block must,
ain
11
12 through use of an algorithm known to miner systems, prove to other nodes that it is responsible for
13 the new block (Dinh et al. 2018). At this point a majority must accept this in order for the block to be
14
15 approved (Yu et al. 2018). Visible to anyone, public blockchains may have a high number of nodes,
Ma
16
17 which increases security because an attacker would need to access a significant number of nodes in
18
order to change data on the blockchain and then approve that change with a majority of ‘votes’ (Lin
19
na
20 and Liao 2017), though there are other potential failure points in many configurations of blockchain
21
22 (Gramoli 2017). The number of nodes in a public blockchain makes the system less efficient
23
ge
compared to private and consortium blockchains, because the majority required to approve each
24
25 additional block is higher than the few (or single) in a consortium (or private) blockchain (Yermack
26
me
27 2017).
28
29 Supply chains usually use permissioned blockchains (Cole et al. 2019) because of considerations that
30
31 permissionless blockchains would undermine traditional supply chain system logic by decentralising
nt
32
data management to produce immutability (Li et al. 2018). Using the lack of extensive PoW protocols
33
:a
34 across a widely distributed network, nodes could potentially collude with a single supplier to
35
36 undermine the blockchain (Apte and Petrovsky 2016).
nI
37
38 Blockchain potentially offers the upstream visibility in supply chains that consumers are increasingly
39
40 demanding, for example by logging data on whether specific fish have been legally caught or
nt
41
42
identifiable diamonds legally mined (Francisco and Swanson 2018). This is largely a result of the
ern
43 decentralised, consensus-based trust mechanism underpinning the technology (Hackius and

44
45 Petersen 2017), which aids performance management of key SCM processes through simultaneous
46
47 immutability and transparency (Kshetri 2018).
ati
48
49 The visibility provided by blockchain solutions aids decision making (McConaghy et al. 2017) by
50
enabling stakeholders to see timely, accurate, reliable information while reducing the number of
on
51
52 data sources that create decision points (Saaty and Ergu 2015). Kshetri (2018) claims that blockchain
53
54 can be deployed without the need for devices or tag-attachment processes and offers unit-level
al
55
56 identification, though provides no justification of this. It is possible using biochemical tracing. For
57 example Oritain (www.oritain.com) developed biochemical fingerprinting allowing verification
Jo
58
59 sample testing to be undertaken throughout the supply chain, but this is a complex solution. Data
60
ur
na
l
up
1
2
p
3 automatically transmitted by RFID technologies can be captured, stored and shared using blockchain
4
ly
5 systems, which deliver visibility at the unit level to enhance trust (Zelbst et al. 2019). However,
6
7 barcodes and QR codes remain dominant (Parreño-Marchante et al. 2014) as RFID tags are relatively
Ch
8 expensive (Segura-Velandia et al. 2016) and the various types are incompatible (Mo and
9
10 Lorchirachoonkul 2012).
ain
11
12 Product labelling solutions all integrate with and complement blockchain solutions, offering a level
13
14 of visibility not previously possible (Francisco and Swanson 2018). With product recalls, for example,
15
“currently, if a retailer faces a foodborne disease outbreak, retailers have a difficult time figuring out
Ma
16
17 where the bad ingredients came from and to which stores they were delivered” (Dobrovnik et al.
18
19 2018, p.28). Since goods cargoes currently involve significant paperwork, existing systems are at risk
na
20
21 of tampering (Kshetri 2018). The substitution of documents in a traditional supply chain can go
22
unnoticed because volumes of paperwork are too great to be constantly rechecked and different
23
ge
24 products might look alike. Mislabelling of fish, for example, is hard to detect because species might
25
26 not be detectable by sight (Pramod et al. 2014). A blockchain-enabled system could counter this
me
27
introducing unit-level visibility to traceability making counterfeiting and fraud more difficult.
28
29 Blockchain does this “by providing a robust system to trace origin, certifying authenticity, tracking
30
31 custody, and verifying integrity of products” through the secure recording and collation of data on
nt
32
each unit (Montecchi et al. 2019, p.284).
33
:a
34
35 2.4 Uses of blockchain in supply chains to date
36
nI
37 The immaturity of blockchain technology applications in supply chains means there are few cases
38
39 available to analyse (Dobrovnik et al. 2018). The following examination of uses of blockchain in the
40
nt
41
supply chain literature thus addresses conceptual models as well as reported cases of trials and
42 projects.
ern
43
44
45
46
47 Countering fraud (the protection imperative)
ati
48
49 Among the main issues addressed thus far in the literature is fraud, particularly regarding the
50
on
51 counterfeiting of goods. The use of blockchain in this respect is in the protection of intellectual
52
53 property, specifically in the realm of digital art. McConaghy et al. (2017) discuss a use case for
54 safeguarding creators and ensuring attribution of any image used. Another example lies in the
al
55
56 context that recent years have seen scandals in the food industry including supplier fraud, as in the
57
Jo
58 case of the ‘horsemeat scandal’ in Europe (Agnoli et al. 2016), poisoning, such as the milk formula
59 case in China (Xiu and Klein 2010), and a rise in environmental and social claims in controversial
60
ur
na
l
up
1
2
p
3 products such as palm oil (Oosterveer 2015). The complexity and risk involved in food requires more
4
ly
5 rapid response (Lindgreen and Hingley 2003), and blockchain is potentially well-suited to offering the
6
7 visibility required (Ringsberg 2014).
Ch
8
9 Food supply chains are seen as vulnerable, and of the blockchain cases in the literature, US
10
supermarket Walmart’s is the most high-profile (Kamath 2018). Initially tracking pork in its Chinese
ain
11
12 supply chains (Zhao et al. 2016), the company believes that the visibility offered by blockchain
13
14 guarantees both better sourcing control and enhanced risk management: “Even in the event of
15
contamination, the greater controls and visibility offered by Blockchain enable the contamination to
Ma
16
17 be traced to the source for proper corrective actions” (Biggs et al. 2017, p.9).
18
19
There are other food risks which blockchain might also mitigate. Biswas et al. (2017) cite the annual
na
20
21
$15bn cost of fraudulent wines (5% of the global market) as evidence of the need for the visibility
22
23 that blockchain could offer supply chains. Their proposed system uses a consortium protocol to
ge
24
25 ensure that information is kept to a limited number of partners, in this case the entire supply chain
26
from vineyard to retailer. This end-to-end approach means “anyone in the supply chain can trace the
me
27
28 origin, production and purchase history of each individual product… [and] can verify the provenance
29
30 and authenticity of the purchased wine by inputting the product ID in the system. After receiving the
31
nt
product ID, the system first identifies the batch of wine and then traces back all transactions made
32
33 by different entities in the supply chain for the corresponding item” (Biswas et al. 2017, p.5).
:a
34
35
Such fraud is not limited to higher-value products such as wines. Rejeb (2018) develops a similar
36
nI
37 concept for Ghanaian tilapia, an often mis-sold white fish. The concept works by using mobile
38
39 technology to input environmental conditions at the farm level onto a blockchain and then using
40
nt
41
RFID tags to track products through the supply chain, giving the consumer visibility of product
42 provenance.
ern
43
44
45
The value of counterfeit pharmaceuticals ($200bn per year globally) and associated safety concerns
46 have led to interest in blockchain-enabled visibility in the industry(Clark and Burstall 2018). Though
47
ati
48 details of active trials of blockchain in pharmaceuticals supply chains are not currently found in the
49
50 literature, Tseng et al. (2018) conceive of a system of unit-level visibility in order to improve
on
51 regulatory checks by appointing government agencies and large pharmaceutical companies to roles
52
53 which verify data inputs.
54
al
55
56
57
Jo
58 Customer demand (the market imperative)

59
60
ur
na
l
up
1
2
p
3 A significant motivation for companies investing in blockchain for SCV is increasing consumer
4
ly
5 demand for information about product origins (Casado-Vara et al. 2018). The internet has enabled
6
7 greater information sharing for customers (Wilson and Clarke 1998), and blockchain offers the
Ch
8 potential for the kind of visibility that can be corroborated by the system (Abeyratne and Monfared
9
10 2016). The level and quality of visible data that this might offer could increase service quality to
ain
11
12 consumers, creating greater value (Wang, Singgih, et al. 2019).
13
14 Wang et al. (2019, p.71) posit that customers “increasingly demand to know how, when and where
15
products are sourced and processed.” The desire for enhancing visibility has led to trials of
Ma
16
17 blockchain in supply chains.Ffor example Verhoeven et al. (2018, p.12), report that Bext360 is using
18
19 the technology to assure the provenance of their coffee harvest because, “the ‘classic’ approach of
na
20
21 tracking and tracing is expensive, imprecise, and does not address the consumers’ demand for visible
22
transactions on the supply chain.”
23
ge
24
25 There are also human rights-related reasons for firms seeking assurance that they can offer
26
customers ethical products. Both consumers (McClenachan et al. 2016), and business (Gold et al.
me
27
28 2015), fear forced and child labour. Other forms of corporate malpractice may be addressed by
29
30 enhanced corporate social responsibility. Labour issues such as ‘modern slavery’ are best addressed
31
nt
by giving consumers specific, detailed information relating to product veracity. Provenance has
32
33 trialled blockchain in products such as fish and leather goods for consumer information demands,
:a
34
35 including human rights issues in Indonesia. The company used mobile phones and smart tags to
36
collect data to go onto the blockchain, simultaneously meeting consumer demands for enhanced
nI
37
38 visibility and contribute to sustainable development (Kewell et al. 2017).
39
40
nt
41
42
2.5 Residual issues identified in the blockchain literature
ern
43
44
45 While the number of trials in the literature is limited thus far, both extant pilots and broader
46
47 conceptual papers have identified real and potential issues with blockchain’s use for visibility in
ati
48
49 supply chains.
50
on
51 First, digitisation is required. Existing ERP systems have integration problems that blockchain would
52
53 not necessarily solve (Abeyratne and Monfared 2016), which would, for both connectedness and
54 security, require integration along the whole supply chain (Rejeb 2018). This causes problems in
al
55
56 areas of the world that lack necessary infrastructure (Kshetri 2018), creating gaps in the supply chain
57
Jo
58 in which reliable data are unavailable, opening the process to questions as to the trustworthiness of
59
60
ur
na
l
up
1
2
p
3 all information provided to the end consumer. The problem leads Motta et al. (at press) to suggest
4
ly
5 that confidence in blockchain is as much a social as a technical issue.
6
7 Assuming the need for full-technology integration can be overcome, two issues remain.
Ch
8
9 Interoperability of fully-digitised supply chains is not assured (Casino et al. 2019). The ‘fully-digitised
10
supply chain’ cannot be fully digital in the case of physical goods. Errors and fraud can enter the
ain
11
12 digital supply chain at the interface between the physical and digital. Apte and Petrovsky (2016)
13
14 highlight that the data on the blockchain cannot be guaranteed to match the physical good. Babich
15
and Hilary (2019) offer a specific example, demonstrating that blockchain might be entirely accurate
Ma
16
17 when used to verify the provenance of a product or the conditions in which it is harvested, but that
18
19 authenticated certification is only true at the moment of attestation. Conditions may change
na
20
21 immediately, rendering blockchain-enabled verification outdated even before the certificate has
22
been seen by a customer. As O’Leary (2017, p.141) explains, “unfortunately, visibility itself does not
23
ge
24 make a transaction correct, and the ‘threat’ of visibility (as a preventive or detective control) does
25
26 not ensure that the transaction is correct” because fraud and human input error remain significant
me
27
problems.
28
29
30 Second, governance in blockchains necessitates compromise. On a public blockchain governance
31
nt
may be problematic because the blockchain has no ‘owner’, while on a private blockchain the owner
32
33 is the governor (Wu et al. 2017). On a consortium blockchain there could be trade-offs between how
:a
34
35 much access to give entities on the blockchain and the sensitivity of some of that data (O’Leary
36
2017). Such issues could take time to resolve. The current industry standard system - Electronic Data
nI
37
38 Exchange – has been waiting over 30 years for the industry to agree a standard (Dobrovnik et al.
39
40 2018). Pass and Shi (2017) foresee a need to ensure that oligopolistic control of a blockchain system
nt
41
42
by a few powerful parties does not undermine trust.
ern
43
44 The limited evidence of live cases and conceptual models of blockchain for SCV provide a foundation
45
46 for examining the subject. Our case studies allow us to both challenge and build on this groundwork.
47 The paper’s research questions are thus: How are firms using blockchain for supply chain visibility in
ati
48
49 the food industry? What are the challenges?
50
on
51
52
53
54 3. Methodology
al
55
56 Context
57
Jo
58 The supply chain literature shows that response to consumer demand is a driver of competitive
59
60 advantage (e.g. Mason-Jones and Towill 1997). Supply chain managers relied on traceability systems
ur
na
l
up
1
2
p
3 for data about products in supply chains, and food scandals in the 1990s introduced traceability
4
ly
5 requirements to food regulations (Karlsen et al. 2013). Traceability, “the ability to identify the origin
6
7 of an item or group of items, through records, upstream in the supply chain” (Schwägele 2005,
Ch
8 p.166) is key in locating product problems in supply chains (Resende-Filho and Hurley 2012).
9
10 Consumers increasingly demand more information about products, particularly around food
ain
11
12 sustainability (Govindan 2018), that current traceability systems cannot deliver. Visibility is a
13 capability that offers firms both the opportunity to present information to customers (Busse et al.
14
15 2017) and also enhance the decision-making of supply chain firms (Yang 2014). Visibility provides the
Ma
16
17 “capability to use information to initiate and inform action” (Parry et al. 2016, p.231), providing
18
consumers the information they require. Blockchain could be an enabler for visibility, and this work
19
na
20 therefore sets out to investigate this technology.

21
22
To explore uses of blockchain for enhancing SCV, case studies were carried out. The case study
23
ge
24 method was adopted for its use in answering ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions (Yin 2014). The units of
25
26 analyses are four firms using blockchain in their supply chains. Agridigital is a provider of blockchain
me
27
services to the agriculture industry; Techrock, provider of a blockchain solution to tainted infant
28
29 formula; the World Wildlife Fund’s (WWF) Pacific fisheries division focuses on sustainable fishing
30
31 with the help of blockchain provider TraSeable; Demeter (the Greek goddess of the harvest and
nt
32
growth and a pseudonym given to an anonymised firm here) has successfully used blockchain-
33
:a
34 enabled smart tags to authenticate wine and offer consumers vineyard-to-retail store visibility.
35
36
The collective case study approach allowed us to study a contemporary issue in its context or,
nI
37
38 importantly in this particular research, in its many contexts (Stake 1995). This means that the
39
40 understandings gained from the study are meaningful and relevant to their settings (Farquhar 2012),
nt
41
42
take account of the open system in which businesses operate, with its broad, differing influences
ern
43 (Leca and Naccache 1988), and allow for increased generalizability (Yin 2014).
44
45
46 Sample
47
ati
48 We used a mixed strategy to find firms to approach for interviews. We began by using industry
49
50 contacts to discover firms of interest within our network, as well as using other desktop methods
on
51 such as searching business networking websites and reading industry news for stories on
52
53 organisations already using blockchain in their supply chains. We then used snowball sampling
54
al
55 (Farquhar 2012), asking interviewees if they knew of anyone that we should talk to about blockchain
56 and SCV. The latter method proved fruitful as it often came with an introduction to the prospective
57
Jo
58 respondent.
59
60
ur
na
l
up
1
2
p
3 The method led to us approaching 73 organisations. Of these, we received 42 responses, from which
4
ly
5 we were able to proceed and conduct 28 interviews with 15 firms (nine of which we subsequently
6
7 interviewed for a second time), which we categorised as: providers of blockchain for SCV; their
Ch
8 customers; and commentators on the technology, including journalists and management
9
10 consultants. A semi-structured interview technique was used to focus on important issues that arose
ain
11
12 during the course of conversations as respondents raised them (Finley 2018). These interviews
13 included questions regarding the individuals’ capacity in working with blockchain, the opportunities
14
15 firms have found in their supply chains, and the major challenges they discovered. We followed
Ma
16
17 these questions up where appropriate for specific examples and detail.
18
19 From these interviews, we came to understand that there is significant concern in many firms
na
20
21 regarding the sharing of information regarding their supply chain work with blockchain.
22
Organisations were concerned about the commercial sensitivity of their trials, seeking to prevent
23
ge
24 ‘second-mover advantage’, where rivals wait to see how early technology adopters err before
25
26 learning from those mistakes (Hoppë 2000). Other firms were found not to have developed a
me
27
technology at all, rather their blockchain ‘vapourware’ was a marketing device to make them sound
28
29 advanced. Seven firms engaged in detailed discussions with us, two of which were later prevented
30
31 by technology partners from providing us with enough information for inclusion. Of the remaining
nt
32
five, two were in partnership, which gave us useful insights into the technology provider-user
33
:a
34 relationship and are dealt with together in a joint case study. The remaining three also provided a
35
36 depth of information, enabling us to present four cases, although one would not grant us permission
nI
37
38
to name them. Following the interviews, emails and archival data were used to elucidate important
39 points.
40
nt
41
42
Data analysis
ern
43
44 An inductive analytical approach was used, characterised by Kennedy and Thornberg (2018, p.52) as
45
46 a “series of empirical cases to identify a pattern from which to make a general statement”. Inductive
47 research begins from an agnostic position, allowing ultimately generalisable themes to emerge from
ati
48
49 the data (Abbasi 2012) and since our research was exploratory, this method offered the freedom to
50
discover from, rather than search within, data.
on
51
52
53 Interviews were conducted by one or two interviewers and the notes read by four researchers and
54
al
55 coded independently for themes. Discussions around each researcher’s codes surfaced relevant
56 themes which were used in the analysis. That the four case studies come from the food industry
57
Jo
58 reflects the inherent risks in that sector’s supply chains (Lindgreen and Hingley 2003). We guard
59
60
ur
na
l
up
1
2
p
3 against limiting the paper’s findings to food alone, however, as some of the challenges our cases
4
ly
5 highlight are blockchain-specific rather than unique to the industry.
6
7
Ch
8
9
10 4. Case studies
ain
11
12 1. Agridigital
13
14 1.1 Company background
15
Ma
16
17 AgriDigital is an Australian agricultural commodity management platform provider and supply chain
18 financier founded in 2015.
19
na
20
21 1.2 Product and rationale
22
23 Agriculture is one of the least digitised industries. Many farmers record data such as
ge
24
25 pharmaceuticals administered to animals on pencil and paper. AgriDigital has reacted to increasing
26
consumer demand by creating a verification system using blockchain.
me
27
28
29 1.3 System and benefits
30
31
nt
In response to increasing customer demand around product provenance, Agridigital offers assurance
32
33 of the veracity of the organic status of agricultural products. This is because, as a senior manager
:a
34
asserts, Agridigital “want to verify marketing claims rather than get all the data.” To do this, farmers
35
36 collect a range of data on a web application. Myriad data sources are available, but only those data
nI
37
38 directly pertaining to organic status (i.e. the customers’ interest) are recorded. These are data from
39
stages of growing the cereal (seed used, weather, fertilizer), through production (milling location,
40
nt
41 other cereals milled there), and transport (times and locations), and are matched to pre-identified
42
and verified operational practices.
ern
43
44
45 These data are then bundled into assertions, each representing a claim established as important to
46
47 proving the organic status of the product. Each assertion is then hashed and recorded on a layer of a
ati
48
49
private Quorum blockchain. In order to track shipments, Agridigital uses RFID-enabled weighbridges,
50 which detect and weigh tagged vehicles, adding time, weight, and location data onto the blockchain.
on
51
52 A web application is then used at the point of packaging to determine the true/false organic status
53
54 of the product.
al
55
56 1.4 Remaining problems
57
Jo
58 While AgriDigital has proven blockchain able to provide visibility along the supply chain, the firm
59
60 highlighted three challenges. First is the human input element. Error and corruption in data entry are
ur
na
l
up
1
2
p
3 compounded in blockchain-enabled systems because the technology’s inbuilt trust mechanism can
4
ly
5 mean data being accepted unhesitatingly. A senior manager asserts that “blockchain seems to bring
6
7 with it a ‘halo of truth’ which leads to a lack of questioning of the data”. Second, the technology will
Ch
8 not fulfil its potential unless supply chains are fully digitised beforehand. While this presents
9
10 practical problems in certain industries, not least agriculture, a senior manager does believe that
ain
11
12 products can be developed simultaneously with technological solutions to embed blockchain and
13 fully leverage its potential. Finally, the senior manager believes that using blockchain in small
14
15 networks is “simply a thought exercise,” and that once the supply chain is fully digitised, as many
Ma
16
17 nodes as possible within that network must be added to the blockchain infrastructure in order to
18
maximise both the volume of relevant data and the security of the network. An issue inherent in this
19
na
20 logic, and given the immaturity of privacy solutions at a chain as well as transactional level, is that all
21
22 sub-contractors would need to be nodes in a ‘maximised’ network, putting at risk the commercial
23
ge
sensitivity not only of contractors’ identities, but also their data, including price and contractual
24
25 data, though this may be overcome in time as the technology matures.
26
me
27
28
29
30 2. Techrock
31
nt
32 2.1 Company and background

33
:a
34
Chinese company Techrock is both a developer and user of blockchain for SCV. The firm was founded
35
36 in 2013 by two friends with first-hand experience of counterfeit consumables in China.
nI
37
38
2.2 Product and rationale
39
40
nt
41 Techrock’s main product offers assurance to parents regarding the provenance of infant formula, a
42
major concern following contamination of powdered milk products with melamine, a poison which
ern
43
44 affected 300,000 babies in 2008 (Gong and Jackson 2012). The firm works with producers of infant
45
46 formula and other health-related goods to secure their products.
47
ati

49
50
Techrock’s products are protected by smart packaging. A small wire is embedded in the product
on
51
52 label which acts as an antenna for an RFID tag. The tag is readable by a consumer’s smartphone app,
53
54 which authenticates the product within two seconds of being scanned. Every scan of the tag creates
al
55
56 a new authentication key. The antenna communicates the new key to Techrock, where it is stored
57 on a public Hyperledger-based blockchain. The app first tells the customer that the product is
Jo
58
59 authentic, then provides details such as date and location of production, a picture of what the
60
ur
na
l
up
1
2
p
3 product should look like, and a list of every scan of the tag, including their own. This offers the
4
ly
5 consumer confidence in the safety of the product because, by opening the can, a consumer breaks
6
7 the wire in the label.
Ch
8
9 By storing authentication keys on its blockchain, Techrock guards against counterfeiting and helps to
10
assure customers that the product they are purchasing is authentic. The smartphone app scan allows
ain
11
12 the consumer to guarantee that the product has not been corrupted.
13
14
Ma
16
17 A senior manager acknowledges, however, that challenges remain. First, while this system works as
18
19 designed for infant formula, food supplements, and vitamins, the cost of the solution may be high
na
20
for relatively cheap products. Parents are perhaps uniquely willing to pay significantly higher retail
21
22 prices for the type of assurance offered by Techrock’s solution. Second, in some markets, the firm
23
ge
24 believes, there is an inherent lack of trust between consumers and businesses, which have
25
overpromised trustworthiness previously. This makes communicating the benefits of the technology
26
me
27 simultaneously essential and very difficult. Finally, at time of initial interview, the technology used by
28
29 Techrock was prevented from working on iPhones, although this issue has since been overcome.
30
31
nt
32
33
3. World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and TraSeable Solutions
:a
34
35
36 3.1 Company name and background
nI
37
38 TraSeable Solutions is a Fijian provider of blockchain services founded in 2017 working in partnership
39
40 with WWF on a project to provide sustainable management of tuna in the Western and Central
nt
41
42
Pacific.
ern
43
45
46 The two organisations partnered to create one of the first ventures to use blockchain to tackle the
47
ati
48 problems of illegal fishing. The system seeks to provide data enabling local fishing companies to take
49
50 advantage of developed countries’ demand for catches that are sustainably certified and from
on
51 fisheries free of human and labour rights abuses, as fisheries have been identified as being high-risk
52
53 for modern slavery.
54
al

56
57
Jo
58 TraSeable enables its customers to collect details on harvests such as location, crew details, catch
59 logs, and fishing ground analytics using a smartphone app. Location and route data are logged in
60
ur
na
l
up
1
2
p
3 parallel with satellite tracking data which are automatically documented on the firm’s public
4
ly
5 Ethereum blockchain. During processing, shipments are tagged with QR codes and data recorded
6
7 with a web application capturing each critical process, providing visibility of details such as cold
Ch
8 storage conditions. These data can then be shared with the end consumer, who can use their
9
10 smartphone to scan a QR code on the packaging to view details about catch and processing location,
ain
11
12 and other third parties for uses such as processing permit applications and recording audits.
13
15
Ma
16 While this technology enhances supply chain transparency and visibility and has had a positive
17
18 impact on environmentally and socially sustainable fishing, problems remain. First, remote areas of
19
the Pacific often have neither the digital infrastructure nor the hardware to facilitate automated
na
20
21
data collection at this level. This means that human data entry is required and the threat of error or
22
23 fraud persists. This is particularly the case for what the organisations view as ‘opaque and diffuse'
ge
24
25 Southeast Asian fisheries that consist of thousands of vessels delivering to hundreds ports and
26
processing facilities subject to little monitoring and oversight. Second, at a macro level, blockchain
me
27
28 currently lacks adequate data and input standards, creating governance issues and prevent learning
29
30 from one trial being communicated effectively elsewhere.
31
nt
32
33
:a
34
4. Demeter
35
36
4.1 Company name and background
nI
37
38
39 Demeter is the pseudonym we have given a European firm initially engaged in traceability in the
40
nt
41 food industry pre-blockchain, which has now pioneered the technology for authentication and SCV
42
for several consumer goods.
ern
43
44
46
47 The firm has successfully trialled blockchain for wine veracity. Among the world’s most counterfeited
ati
48
49 goods, mislabelled wine is a problem which harms both corporate value through suboptimal
50
products being seen as the producer’s responsibility, and also public health, since ingredients added
on
51
52 to fake wines may be harmful.
53
54
al

56
57 Demeter has partnered with a wine producer which uses web applications to collect data on its
Jo
58
59 product. The firm uses a modular, reusable label with an RFID tag, which is scanned at each node to
60 provide traceability and visibility. Data captured include growing conditions, grape variety and
ur
na
l
up
1
2
p
3 handlers of the wine in the supply chain. This has allowed the partnership to track over 10,000
4
ly
5 bottles of wine. Data are stored on a public Ethereum blockchain, which allows consumers to use a
6
7 smartphone app to scan a QR code on the label. The app will inform them immediately through a
Ch
8 colour-coded response whether the bottle is authentic. Their device will then provide data on the
9
10 product’s journey from vineyard to store.
ain
11
12 The firm uses a combination of factors to enhance trust and security in the network. First, to prevent
13
14 collusion, Demeter works on an n+1 premise, whereby if there are two (=n) parties to a transaction,
15
three other parties must have the data on their systems. Second, from a transactional perspective,
Ma
16
17 blockchain can provide the focal firm with a “mass balance” to ensure that the total value of
18
19 transactions matches the final balance, but without giving it all transaction data, a result called “zero
na
20
21 knowledge truth”.
22
ge
24
25
A senior manager at Demeter believes that the greatest barriers to wider blockchain adoption are
26
me
27 twofold. First, the technology’s underpinning of cryptocurrencies and the associated negative media
28
29 that has attracted gives consumers an adverse view of blockchain. Ironically, a trust issue with
30
blockchain - the ‘trust machine’ - seems to exist. The secrecy in which most blockchain trials are held
31
nt
32 is holding affirmative information back from consumers, both preventing them from learning the
33
technology’s capabilities and making them wonder why information is being kept from them.
:a
34
35
Second, those convinced by blockchain’s ability to provide SCV have started from a position that all
36
nI
37 data needs to be stored on blockchains. Demeter believes that this is not only unnecessary, but
38
39 expensive and time-consuming. Critical, sensitive data relating specifically to the problem blockchain
40
nt
41
is being used to solve should go onto the blockchain; non-essential data can be stored locally and
42 shared as required.
ern
43
44
45
46
47 5. Discussion and conclusions
ati
48
49 We ask how firms are using blockchain for SCV, and what the challenges are. The supply chain
50
on
51 literature indicates that a lack of visibility hinders effective SCM (Bartlett et al. 2007). Processes are
52
53 prevented from working optimally (Petersen et al. 2005); potentially critical data are unavailable
54 (Christopher and Lee 2004); data fragmentation creates information asymmetry, hampering
al
55
56 productivity and creating trust imbalances (Wang and Wei 2007). The emergent literature on
57
Jo
58 blockchain as a tool for visibility in supply chains suggests that the technology has the potential to
59 solve some of these problems, though caveats remain (Abeyratne and Monfared 2016).
60
ur
na
l
up
1
2
p
3 Evaluating blockchain’s use as a visibility tool in SCM, we have conducted four in-depth case studies
4
ly
5 on firms operating in agriculture, infant formula, fisheries, and wine. Our findings verify some of the
6
7 claims made in the extant literature, including confirmation of specific models. These include the
Ch
8 need to design a system that reduces the potential for Sybil attacks outlined by Apte and Petrovsky
9
10 (2016), addressed by Demeter’s n+1 procedure. Dobrovnik et al.’s (2018) claim that unit-level
ain
11
12 visibility offers profitability generated from customer-centricity is borne out by Techrock’s business
13 model. The WWF-TraSeable joint venture partially advances the need for better sourcing control
14
15 highlighted by Biggs et al. (2017) while also reducing the potential for labour abuses in fisheries
Ma
16
17 (Gold et al. 2015). Biswas et al.’s (2017) anti-counterfeit model for wines shares results with
18
Demeter. All four of our cases demonstrate Kshetri’s (2018) assertion that blockchain offers both
19
na
20 immutability and transparency, while WWF-TraSeable, Techrock, and Demeter all support the
21
22 position that unit-level visibility is possible. All of our cases highlight the need for end-to-end supply
23
ge
chain digitisation (Abeyratne and Monfared 2016).

24
25
26 The paper also challenges certain ideas. Kshetri (2018) suggests that blockchain removes the
me
27
requirement for tagging technologies. While this is potentially the case in limited instances, we find
28
29 tags essential in all our cases. Similarly, while Casado-Vara et al. (2018) posit that consumer
30
31 demands on product provenance are driving blockchain’s implementation for SCV, our cases
nt
32
demonstrate that assurances regarding product security are also key. Finally, the idea that supply
33
:a
34 chains for physical goods cannot be fully digitised (Apte and Petrovsky 2016) are partially challenged
35
36 by Techrock’s vertically-integrated business model, which removes certain boundaries, though
nI
37
38
admittedly not all.
39
40 The Demeter case demonstrates that unit-level data allows for product recalls in the event of
nt
41
42
contamination and simultaneously makes such events less likely. By capturing data as they are
ern
43 created, Demeter’s solution allows stakeholders to see what has happened at and between each
44
45 node and make informed decisions based on that flow of information. Similarly, Techrock’s
46
47 pioneering use of blockchain offers the end consumer specific data on the package in their hands to
ati
48 alert them to issues. In this case, the vertically-integrated model used by Techrock potentially
49
50 reduces supply chain risk by decreasing the number of nodes in the chain. And despite Agridigital’s
on
51
52 claim that consumers do not want to be overwhelmed by data, but simply validate the veracity of
53 firms’ marketing claims, the company’s use of blockchain offers a level of visibility that not only
54
al
55 enriches SCM but also allows consumer-facing organisations to offer data to suit both customer
56
57 needs and product requirements.
Jo
58
59
60
ur
na
l
up
1
2
p
3 The WWF-TraSeable project provides a working demonstrator of Rejeb’s (2018) conceptualisation of
4
ly
5 blockchain’s use for targeting mis-sold fish. In both labelling fish at the point of catch and using
6
7 satellite data to verify vessel routes, WWF and TraSeable have countered human rights abuses in
Ch
8 fisheries at the same time as providing product provenance. The project therefore demonstrates
9
10 that a well-designed use of blockchain can tackle multiple SCV problems simultaneously.
ain
11
12 However, while these cases advance the argument for blockchain as a tool for SCV, they each offer
13
14 problems that will interest both users and researchers. We have categorised these residual issues
15
thus: issues of trust; boundary issues; issues of governance; and consumer issues. Issues of trust,
Ma
16
17 divided by questions of both scarcity and excess, threaten the development of the technology, its
18
19 adoption as a tool for SCV, and its value once implemented. We find, through barriers identified by
na
20
21 Demeter, that the secrecy in which trials have been conducted to date is hampering the sharing of
22
problems and best practice, potentially leading to duplication of effort. Allied to this is the
23
ge
24 perception that previous systems, and business in general, have previously over-promised on trust,
25
26 creating a wariness that advocates for blockchain will need to overcome. Once blockchain has been
me
27
implemented, care will need to be taken that data stored on blockchains is not treated
28
29 unquestioningly. As a senior manager at Agridigital suggests, there is a potentially dangerous
30
31 tendency to view “immutability as infallibility.”
nt
32
33 Allied to issues of trust are boundary issues: problems of connection between the physical and the
:a
34
35 blockchain worlds. Interviewees were almost unanimous in declaring that full digitisation of the
36
supply chain is a precondition for the adoption of blockchain. Without that requirement, human
nI
37
38 data entry onto blockchains retains the potential for error and corruption discussed by O’Leary
39
40 (2017), and leaves all of the data on the blockchain open to doubt.
nt
41
42 Issues of governance centre on the lack of standards around blockchain. Identified by WWF-
ern
43
44 TraSeable, we find that without agreed protocols, data entered onto blockchains could be
45
46 inconsistent in terms of level of detail, comparability, and which supply chain nodes are included on
47 a blockchain. The difficulty of knowing how much data to put onto a blockchain is also a governance
ati
48
49 challenge. For all data to be automatically entered onto a fully-digitised blockchain, all nodes must
50
be included. This creates three problems. First, it endangers the identity of actors within the supply
on
51
52 chain. Second, the difficulty of masking commercially sensitive data increases with the volume of
53
54 data. Finally, the quantities of data produced in supply chains could require significant computing
al
55
56 power, even given the potential to hash images (Patel 2018). The latter issue leads a senior manager
57 at an internet governance institute interviewed for the research to suggest that blockchain’s future
Jo
58
59 lies predominantly with corporations tracking huge quantities of goods, such as Amazon and FEDEX.
60
ur
na
l
up
1
2
p
3 Consumer issues include the usability of blockchain-stored data to the general public, and willingness
4
ly
5 to pay. We find that a lack of inter-operability prevents some consumers from accessing data stored
6
7 on blockchains specifically for the buying public. The Techrock case highlights that non-traditional
Ch
8 actors might need to become supply chain partners. If a company develops a technology which uses
9
10 blockchain but is unavailable to a significant proportion of the mobile phone-using market, the
ain
11
12 potential value to the developer is reduced. On the other hand, the same case highlights a use for
13 blockchain in which the extra cost required to develop a product using the technology is taken on by
14
15 the consumer. This may only hold for high-risk goods such as infant formula, and potentially high-
Ma
16
17 value status goods.
18
19
na
20
21
6. Implications
22
23
ge
24 6.1 Theory implications

25
26 In contributing to theory, this paper first highlights a gap in the impact of blockchain on the shifting
me
27
28 role of agency in digitally-integrated supply chains. The findings from the cases show that blockchain
29
is most likely to succeed in supply chains which are sufficiently digitised to enable data to be
30
31
nt
collected and stored on a single, supply chain-length system. Supply chains linked by features such
32
33 as supplier trust enable their constituent parts to better manage risk (Li et al. 2015). Monitoring of
:a
34
supplier sustainability practices enhances focal firm performance (Shafiq et al. 2017). We find that
35
36 the potential visibility offered by blockchain could enhance trust by easing supply chain friction,
nI
37
38 reducing the role of a focal firm from monitor to destination. Our major contribution is therefore
39
40
that, while sustainability responsibilities may have produced ‘double agency’ (Wilhelm et al. 2016),
nt
41 blockchain potentially shifts the role of agent to technology solution provider as visibility blurs inter-
42
firm boundaries.
ern
43
44
45 6.2 Policy implications
46
47
ati
48 For policy, the visibility offered by blockchain potentially extends to auditors and authorities. The
49 records that firms maintain, which we find are as much for product safety as they are for confirming
50
on
51 marketing claims, can be shared simply by granting permission for relevant third parties, whether
52
53 they are partners or tax, customs, or certifications organisations. Policy makers might therefore opt
54 for access for various financial and legal reasons.
al
55
56
57 6.3 Managerial implications
Jo
58
59
60
ur
na
l
up
1
2
p
3 Blockchain could significantly enhance SCV. While this ability has long been desired in SCM, demand
4
ly
5 for it has grown with public problems in supply chains. Supply chain traceability systems enable firms
6
7 to view the ‘when’ and ‘where’ that Wang et al. (2019) discuss, but not ‘how’ products are
Ch
8 processed. As consumers have become increasingly insistent, firms have made claims and adopted
9
10 certifications the veracity of which the end customer has never been able to verify.
ain
11
12 In order for consumer hunger for knowledge on product provenance to be sated, several changes
13
14 must be made to supply chains. First, without full digitisation, the potential for error and fraud may
15
mean customers cannot be satisfied and firms cannot trust upstream processes (Montecchi et al.
Ma
16
17 2019). Second, as RFID tags were very expensive when first used in product traceability (Balocco et
18
19 al. 2011), full-visibility blockchain solutions can be expensive, potentially limiting their use to lower-
na
20
21 volume, higher-value goods. Decisions will need to be made around consumer willingness to pay or
22
corporate disposition to absorb costs to reduce risk. Finally, consortia will need to decide how to
23
ge
24 govern their blockchain networks. Collusion may be as great a risk as external systems attacks, and
25
26 all parties involved will need to evaluate their appetite for knowledge within their supply chains
me
27
against the overall benefits to each party, the network as a whole, and the consumer.
28
29
30 While this study offers findings that can be generalised, particularly with regard to issues still to be
31
nt
overcome, it is limited to the extent that we can describe successes by the specific use cases
32
33 investigated. We urge firms engaged in pilots, trials, and projects to be more open to sharing
:a
34
35 findings, if not the process, so that outcomes might be added to the embryonic body of real case
36
data available. The possibility remains, as a senior consultancy manager interviewed for this
nI
37
38 research asserts, that such “technological solutions do not solve the problem before them, but do
39
40 become an incremental part of that solution.” Learning from the difficulties of implementation is
nt
41
42
likely to be accelerated by a more open, trusting ecosystem developing around the trust machine.
ern
43
44 6.4 Future Work
45
46 There is currently an issue of access to data around blockchain implementations in supply chains,
47
ati
48 and much of the literature is concerned with modelling uses of the technology in this field (e.g.
49
50 Madhwal and Panfilov 2017; Dobrovnik et al. 2018). Firms deploying blockchain solutions is an
on
51 important area of investigation to both test our findings and build further conclusions. In this regard,
52
53 we offer several potential areas for further enquiry. First, we suggest further individual case studies
54
al
55 in other sectors would enable detailed insight into a blockchain-empowered supply system. Second,
56 longitudinal studies to develop insights of the reasons for (and barriers to) adoption of the
57
Jo
58 technology, the various stakeholders involved, and locations and/or institutions that accept and use
59
60 the technology. Finally, there is significant scope for interdisciplinary study of blockchain’s potential
ur
na
l
up
1
2
p
3 to be used for good. Global challenges, particularly those of a wider significance, e.g. palm forest
4
ly
5 devastation, child and forced labour, and inputs to food products. Supply chain researchers can
6
7 address these problems, often with collaborators in related fields, employing blockchain as part of
Ch
8 the solution.
9
10
ain
11
12
13 Bibliography
14
15 Abbasi, M., 2012. Towards socially sustainable supply chains-themes and challenges. Supply Chain
Ma
16
17 Management: an International Journal, 29(3), pp.261–303.
18
19 Abeyratne, S.A. and Monfared, R.P., 2016. Blockchain Ready Manufacturing Supply Chain Using
na
20
21 Distributed Ledger. International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, 5(9),
22
23 pp.1–10.
ge
24
25 Acquaye, A., Genovese, A., Barrett, J. and Lenny Koh, S.C., 2014. Benchmarking carbon emissions
26
me
27 performance in supply chains. Supply Chain Management, 19(3), pp.306–321.

28
29 Agnoli, L., Capitello, R., De Salvo, M., Longo, A. and Boeri, M., 2016. Food fraud and consumers’
30
31 choices in the wake of the horsemeat scandal. British Food Journal, 118(8), pp.1898–1913.
nt
32
33 Apiyo, R.O. and Kiarie, D., 2018. Role of ICT tools in supply chain performance. International Journal
:a
34
35 of Supply Chain Management, 3(1), pp.17–26.
36
nI
37 Apte, S. and Petrovsky, N., 2016. Will blockchain technology revolutionize excipient supply chain
38
39 management? Journal of Excipients and Food Chemicals, 7(3), pp.76–78.
40
nt
41 Asare, A.K., Brashear-Alejandro, T.G. and Kang, J., 2016. B2B technology adoption in customer driven
42
supply chains. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 31(1), pp.1–12.
ern
43
44
45 Attaran, M., 2007. RFID: an enabler of supply chain operations. Supply Chain Management: an
46
47 International Journal, 12(4), pp.249–257.
ati
48
49 Avgerou, C. and Bonina, C., 2019. Ideologies implicated in IT innovation in government: A critical
50
on
51 discourse analysis of Mexico’s international trade administration. Information Systems Journal,

52
53 pp.1–26.
54
al
55 Babich, V. and Hilary, G., 2019. Distributed Ledgers and Operations: What Operations Management
56
57 Researchers Should Know About Blockchain Technology. Manufacturing & Service Operations
Jo
58 Management Published online in Articles in Advance 27, at press., pp.1–18.

59
60
ur
na
l
up
1
2
p
3 Balocco, R., Miragliotta, G., Perego, A. and Tumino, A., 2011. RFId adoption in the FMCG supply
4
ly
5 chain: an interpretative framework. Supply Chain Management: an International Journal, 16(5),
6
7 pp.299–315.
Ch
8
9 Bartlett, P.A., Julien, D.M. and Baines, T.S., 2007. Improving supply chain performance through
10
improved visibility. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 18(2), pp.294–313.
ain
11
12
13 Bergman, S., Asplund, M., Nadjm-Tehrani, S. and Bergman, A.L., 2019. Permissioned blockchains and
14
15 distributed databases: A performance study. Concurrency and Computation, Practice and
Ma
16 Experience, at press.
17
18
19 Biggs, J., Hinish, S.R., Natale, M.A. and Patronick, M., 2017. Blockchain: Revolutionizing the Global
na
20
Supply Chain by Building Trust and Transparency. Newark/New Brunswick, NJ.
21
22
23 Biswas, K., Muthukkumarasamy, V. and Tan, W.L., 2017. Blockchain Based Wine Supply Chain
ge
24
Traceability. Future Technologies Conference. Vancouver: The Science and Information (SAI)
25
26 Organization, pp.56–62.
me
27
28
Busse, C., Schleper, M.C., Weilenmann, J. and Wagner, S.M., 2017. Extending the supply chain
29
30 visibility boundary: utilizing stakeholders for identifying supply chain sustainability risks.
31
nt
32 International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 47(1), pp.18–40.

33
:a
34 Caridi, M., Perego, A. and Tumino, A., 2013. Measuring supply chain visibility in the apparel industry.
35
36 Benchmarking: an International Journal, 20(1), pp.25–44.
nI
37
38 Casado-Vara, R., Prieto, J., La Prieta, F. De and Corchado, J.M., 2018. How blockchain improves the
39
40 supply chain: case study alimentary supply chain. Procedia Computer Science, 134, pp.393–398.
nt
41
42 Casino, F., Dasaklis, T.K. and Patsakis, C., 2019. A systematic literature review of blockchain-based
ern
43
44 applications: Current status, classification and open issues. Telematics and Informatics, 36,
45
46
pp.55–81.
47
ati
48 Christopher, M. and Lee, H., 2004. Mitigating supply chain risk through improved confidence.
49
50 International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 34(5), pp.388–396.
on
51
52 Chuang, M.L. and Shaw, W.H., 2008. An empirical study of enterprise resource management systems
53
54 implementation: From ERP to RFID. Business Process Management Journal, 14(5), pp.675–693.
al
55
56 Ciccullo, F., Pero, M., Caridi, M., Gosling, J. and Purvis, L., 2018. Integrating the environmental and
57
Jo
58 social sustainability pillars into the lean and agile supply chain management paradigms: A
59 literature review and future research directions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, pp.2336–
60
ur
na
l
up
1
2
p
3 2350.
4
ly
5
6 Clark, B. and Burstall, R., 2018. Blockchain, IP and the pharma industry - how distributed ledger
7 technologies can help secure the pharma chain. Journal of Intellectual Porperty Law & Practice,
Ch
8
9 13(7), pp.531–533.
10
ain
11 Cole, R., Stevenson, M. and Aitken, J., 2019. Blockchain Technology: Implications for operations and
12
13 supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: an International Journal, pp.1–34.
14
15 Delen, D., Hardgrave, B.C. and Sharda, R., 2009. RFID for Better Supply-Chain Management through
Ma
16
17 Enhanced Information Visibility. Production and Operations Management, 16(5), pp.613–624.
18
19 Diabat, A., Govindan, K. and Panicker, V. V, 2012. Supply chain risk management and its mitigation in
na
20
21 a food industry. International Journal of Production Research, 50(11), pp.3039–3050.
22
23
ge
Dinh, T.T.A., Liu, R., Zhang, M., Chen, G., Ooi, B.C. and Wang, J., 2018. Untangling Blockchain: A Data
24
25 Processing View of Blockchain Systems. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering,
26
me
27 30(7), pp.1366–1385.
28
29 Dobrovnik, M., Herold, D., Fürst, E. and Kummer, S., 2018. Blockchain for and in Logistics: What to
30
31 Adopt and Where to Start. Logistics, 2(3), pp.18–32.
nt
32
33 Farquhar, J.D., 2012. Case Study Research for Business. London: SAGE.
:a
34
35
Fawcett, S.E., Magnan, G.M. and Mccarter, M.W., 2008. Benefits, barriers, and bridges to effective
36
nI
37 supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: an International Journal, 13(1), pp.35–
38
39 48.
40
nt
41 Finley, S., 2018. Critical Arts-Based Inquiry. In: N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln, eds. The SAGE Handbook
42
of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA.
ern
43
44
45 Francis, V., 2008. Supply chain visibility: lost in translation? Supply Chain Management: an
46
47 International Journal, 13(3), pp.180–184.
ati
48
49 Francisco, K. and Swanson, D., 2018. The Supply Chain Has No Clothes: Technology Adoption of
50
on
51 Blockchain for Supply Chain Transparency. Logistics, 2(1), pp.2–13.

52
53 Frohlich, M.T. and Westbrook, R., 2001. Arcs of integration: an international study of supply chain
54
al
55 strategies. Journal of Operations Management, 19(2), pp.185–200.

56
57 Galvez, J.F., Mejuto, J.C. and Simal-Gandara, J., 2018. Future challenges on the use of blockchain for
Jo
58
59 food traceability analysis. TrAC - Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 107, pp.222–232.
60
ur
na
l
up
1
2
p
3 Gold, S., Trautrims, A. and Trodd, Z., 2015. Modern slavery challenges to supply chain management.
4
ly
5 Supply Chain Management: an International Journal, 20(5), pp.485–494.
6
7 Gong, Q. and Jackson, P., 2012. Consuming Anxiety? Food, Culture & Society, 15(4), pp.557–578.
Ch
8
9
10 Govindan, K., 2018. Sustainable consumption and production in the food supply chain: A conceptual
ain
11 framework. International Journal of Production Economics, 195, pp.419–431.
12
13
14 Gramoli, V., 2017. From blockchain consensus back to Byzantine consensus. Future Generation
15 Computer Systems, at press.
Ma
16
17
18 Guercini, S. and Runfola, A., 2009. The integration between marketing and purchasing in the
19 traceability process. Industrial Marketing Management, 38, pp.883–891.
na
20
21
22 Guo, Y. and Liang, C., 2016. Blockchain application and outlook in the banking industry. Financial
23
ge
Innovation, 2, pp.24–36.
24
25
26 Hackius, N. and Petersen, M., 2017. Blockchain in Logistics and Supply Chain: Trick or Treat? In: W.
me
27
Kersten, T. Blecker and C.M. Ringle, eds. Proceedings of the Hamburg International Conference
28
29 of Logistics (HICL),. Hamburg: Digitization in Supply Chain Logistics, pp.3–18.
30
31
nt
Hardt, M.J., Flett, K. and Howell, C.J., 2017. Current Barriers to Large-scale Interoperability of
32
33 Traceability Technology in the Seafood Sector. Journal of Food Science, 82(1), pp.3–12.
:a
34
35
van Hoek, R., 2019. Unblocking the chain - findings from an executive workshop on blockchain in the
36
nI
37 supply chain. Supply Chain Management: an International Journal, at press..

38
39
Hoppë, H.C., 2000. Second-mover advantages in the strategic adoption of new technology under
40
nt
41 uncertainty. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 18, pp.315–338.

42
ern
43
44
IBM, 2017. IBM Announces Major Blockchain Collaboration with Dole, Driscoll’s, Golden State Foods,
45 Kroger, McCormick and Company, McLane Company, Nestlé, Tyson Foods, Unilever and
46
47 Walmart to Address Food Safety Worldwide [Online]. Available from: https://www-
ati
48
49 03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/53013.wss [Accessed 17 May 2019].
50
on
51 Jansen-Vullers, M.H., Van Dorp, C.A. and Beulens, A.J.M., 2003. Managing traceability information in
52
53 manufacture. International Journal of Information Management, 23, pp.395–413.
54
al
55 Johnson, N., Elliott, D. and Drake, P., 2013. Exploring the role of social capital in facilitating supply
56
57 chain resilience. Supply Chain Management: an International Journal, 18(3), pp.324–336.
Jo
58
59 Jones, K., Visser, D. and Simic, A., 2019. Fishing for export: calo, recruiters, informality, and debt in
60
ur
na
l
up
1
2
p
3 international supply chains. Journal of the British Academy, 7(1), pp.107–130.
4
ly
5
6 Kaipia, R. and Hartiala, H., 2006. Information-sharing in supply chains - five proposals on how to
7 proceed. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 17(3), pp.377–393.
Ch
8
9
10 Kamath, R., 2018. Food Traceability on Blockchain: Walmart’s Pork and Mango Pilots with IBM. The
ain
11 Journal of the British Blockchain Association, 1(1), pp.47–53.
12
13
14 Karlsen, K.M., Dreyer, B., Olsen, P. and Elvevoll, E.O., 2013. Literature review: Does a common
15 theoretical framework to implement food traceability exist? Food Control, 32, pp.409–417.
Ma
16
17
18 Kennedy, B.L. and Thornberg, R., 2018. Deduction, Induction, and Abduction. In: U. Flick, ed. The
19 SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection. London: Sage Publications Ltd., pp.49–64.
na
20
21
22 Kewell, B., Adams, R. and Parry, G., 2017. Blockchain for good? Strategic Change, 26(5), pp.429–437.
23
ge
24 Kharlamov, A. and Parry, G., 2018. Advanced Supply Chains: Visibility, Blockchain and Human
25
26 Behaviour. In: A.C. Moreira, L.M.D.F. Ferreira and R.A. Zimmermann, eds. Innovation and
me
27
Supply Chain Management. Cham: Springer, pp.321–343.
28
29
30 Kim, D., Cavusgil, S.T. and Calantone, R.J., 2006. Information system innovations and supply chain
31
nt
management: Channel relationships and firm performance. Journal of the Academy of

32
33 Marketing Science, 34(1), pp.40–54.
:a
34
35
Kiviat, T.I., 2015. BEYOND BITCOIN: ISSUES IN REGULATING BLOCKCHAIN TRANSACTIONS. Duke Law
36
nI
37 Review, 65, pp.569–608.

38
39
Kshetri, N., 2018. Blockchain’s roles in meeting key supply chain management objectives.
40
nt
41 International Journal of Information Management, 39, pp.80–89.

42
ern
43
44
Kumar Tarofder, A., Ferdous Azam, S.M. and Nabeel Jalal, A., 2017. Operational or strategic benefits:
45 Empirical investigation of internet adoption in supply chain management. Management
46
47 Research Review, 40(1), pp.28–52.
ati
48
49 Kwon, I.-W. and Kim, S.-H., 2018. Framework for successful supply chain implementation in
50
on
51 healthcare area from provider’s perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and
52
53 Entrepreneurship, 12(2), pp.135–145.
54
al
55 Lambert, D.M. and Schwieterman, M.A., 2012. Supplier relationship management as a macro
56
57 business process. Supply Chain Management: an International Journal, 17(3), pp.337–352.
Jo
58
59 Leca, B. and Naccache, P., 1988. A Critical Realist Approach To Institutional Entrepreneurship.
60
ur
na
l
up
1
2
p
3 Organization, 13(5), pp.627–651.
4
ly
5
6 Lemieux, V.L., 2016. Trusting records: is Blockchain technology the answer? Records Management
7 Journal, 26(2), pp.110–139.
Ch
8
9
10 Li, G., Fan, H., Lee, P.K.C. and Cheng, T.C.E., 2015. Joint supply chain risk management: An agency
ain
11 and collaboration perspective. International Journal of Production Economics, 164, pp.83–94.
12
13
14 Li, Z., Barenji, A.V. and Huang, G.Q., 2018. Toward a blockchain cloud manufacturing system as a
15 peer to peer distributed network platform. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing,
Ma
16
17 54(January), pp.133–144.
18
19 Lin, I.-C. and Liao, T.-C., 2017. A Survey of Blockchain Security Issues and Challenges. International
na
20
21 Journal of Network Security, 19(5), pp.653–659.
22
23
ge
Lindgreen, A. and Hingley, M., 2003. The impact of food safety and animal welfare policies on supply
24
25 chain management: The case of the Tesco meat supply chain. British Food Journal, 105(6),
26
me
27 pp.328–349.
28
29 Madhwal, Y. and Panfilov, P.B., 2017. Blockchain and Supply Chain Management- Aircraft Parts
30
31 Business Case. 28th DAAAM International Symposium on Intelligent Manufacturing and
nt
32
Automation. Vienna: DAAAM International, pp.1051–1056.
33
:a
34
35 Majeed, M.A.A. and Rupasinghe, T.D., 2017. Internet of Things (IoT) Embedded Future Supply Chains
36
for Industry 4.0: An Assessment from an ERP-based Fashion Apparel and Footwear Industry.
nI
37
38 International Journal of Supply Chain Management, 6(1), pp.25–40.
39
40
nt
Mason-Jones, R. and Towill, D.R., 1997. Information enrichment: designing the supply chain for
41
42 competitive advantage. Supply Chain Management: an International Journal, 2(4), pp.137–148.
ern
43
44
45
McClenachan, L., Dissanayake, S.T.M. and Chen, X., 2016. Fair trade fish: consumer support for
46 broader seafood sustainability. Fish and Fisheries, 17(3), pp.825–838.
47
ati
48
49
McConaghy, M., McMullen, G., Parry, G., McConaghy, T. and Holtzman, D., 2017. Visibility and digital
50 art: Blockchain as an ownership layer on the Internet. Strategic Change, 26(5), pp.461–470.
on
51
52
53 McGinn, D., Mcilwraith, D. and Guo, Y., 2018. Towards open data blockchain analytics: a Bitcoin
54 perspective. Royal Society Open Science, 5(8), p.180298.
al
55
56
57 Mengelkamp, E., Notheisen, B., Beer, C., Dauer, D. and Weinhardt, C., 2018. A blockchain-based
Jo
58 smart grid: towards sustainable local energy markets. Computer Research-Science and
59
60 Development, 33, pp.207–214.Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00450-017-0360-9.
ur
na
l
up
1
2
p
3 Michalski, M., Montes-Botella, J.L. and Narasimhan, R., 2018. The impact of asymmetry on
4
ly
5 performance in different collaboration and integration environments in supply chain
6
7 management. Supply Chain Management, 23(1), pp.33–49.
Ch
8
9 Mo, J.P.T. and Lorchirachoonkul, W., 2012. Extended system design for RFID enabled supply chains
10
with non-RFID technologies. International Journal of Business Information Systems, 10(3),
ain
11
12 pp.348–368.
13
14
15 Mohammaddust, F., Rezapour, S., Farahani, R.Z., Mofidfar, M. and Hill, A., 2017. Developing lean and
Ma
16 responsive supply chains: A robust model for alternative risk mitigation strategies in supply
17
18 chain designs. International Journal of Production Economics, 183, pp.632–653.
19
na
20
Molla, A. and Bhalla, A., 2006. Business Transformation Through ERP: A Case Study of an Asian
21
22 Company. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research, 8(1), pp.34–54.
23
ge
24
Montecchi, M., Plangger, K. and Etter, M., 2019. It’s real, trust me! Establishing supply chain
25
26 provenance using blockchain. Business Horizons, 62(3), pp.283–293.
me
27
28
Motta, G., Tekinerdogan, B. and Athanasiadis, I.N., at press. Blockchain applications in the agrifood
29
30 domain: the first wave. Frontiers in Blockchain - Blockchain for Good.
31
nt
32
Mueller-Bloch, C.;, Thatcher, J.B. and Beck, R., 2019. Blockchain Research in Information Systems:
33
:a
34 Current Trends and an Inclusive Future Research Agenda. Journal of the Association for
35
36 Information Systems, 20(9), pp.247–265.
nI
37
38 Musa, A., Gunasekaran, A. and Yusuf, Y., 2014. Supply chain product visibility: Methods, systems and
39
40 impacts. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(1), pp.176–194.
nt
41
42 New, S., 2015. Modern Slavery and the Supply Chain: The limits of Corporate Social Responsibility?
ern
43
44 Supply Chain Management: an International Journal, 20(6), pp.697–707.
45
46 Nofer, M., Gomber, P., Hinz, O. and Schiereck, D., 2017. Blockchain. Business & Information Systems
47
ati
48 Engineering, 59(3), pp.183–187.

49
50 Nugent, T., Upton, D. and Cimpoesu, M., 2016. Improving data transparency in clinical trials using
on
51
52 blockchain smart contracts. F1000Research, 5, pp.2541–2550.
53
54 O’Leary, D.E., 2017. Configuring blockchain architectures for transaction information in blockchain
al
55
56 consortiums: The case of accounting and supply chain systems. Intelligent Systems in
57
Jo
58 Accounting, Finance and Management, 24(4), pp.138–147.

59
60 Oosterveer, P., 2015. Promoting sustainable palm oil: viewed from a global networks and flows
ur
na
l
up
1
2
p
3 perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 107, pp.146–153.
4
ly
5
6 Parreño-Marchante, A., Alvarez-Melcon, A., Trebar, M. and Filippin, P., 2014. Advanced traceability
7 system in aquaculture supply chain. Journal of Food Engineering, 122(1), pp.99–109.
Ch
8
9
10 Parry, G. and Graves, A., 2008. The importance of knowledge management for ERP systems.
ain
11 International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, 11(6), pp.427–441.
12
13
14 Parry, G., Price, P. and James-Moore, M., 2003. ERP implementation and maintenance in a lean
15 enterprise. London: DTI/SBAC.
Ma
16
17
18 Parry, G.C., Brax, S.A., Maull, R.S. and Ng, I.C.L., 2016. Operationalising IoT for reverse supply: the
19 development of use-visibility measures. Supply Chain Management, 21(2), pp.228–244.
na
20
21
22 Parry, G.C. and Turner, C.E., 2006. Application of lean visual process management tools. Production
23
ge
Planning and Control, 17(1), pp.77–86.

24
25
26 Pass, R. and Shi, E., 2017. FruitChains: A Fair Blockchain. ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed
me
27
Computing. Vienna: ACM, pp.315–324.
28
29
30 Patel, V., 2018. A framework for secure and decentralized sharing of medical imaging data via
31
nt
blockchain consensus. Health Informatics Journal, pp.1–14.

32
33
Petersen, K.J., Ragatz, G.L. and Monczka, R.M., 2005. An examination of collaborative planning
:a
34
35
effectiveness and supply chain performance. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 41(2),
36
nI
37 pp.14–25.
38
39
Pouliot, S. and Sumner, D.A., 2012. Traceability, recalls, industry reputation and product safety.
40
nt
41 European Review of Agricultural Economics, 40(1), pp.121–142.

42
ern
43
44
Pramod, G., Nakamura, K., Pitcher, T.J. and Delagran, L., 2014. Estimates of illegal and unreported
45 fish in seafood imports to the USA. Marine Policy, 48, pp.102–113.
46
47
ati
48
Rejeb, A., 2018. Blockchain Potential in Tilapia Supply Chain in Ghana. Acta Technica Jaurinensis,
49 11(2), pp.104–118.
50
on
51
52 Resende-Filho, M.A. and Hurley, T.M., 2012. Information Asymmetry and Traceability Incentives for
53 Food Safety. International Journal of Production Economics, 139, pp.596–603.
54
al
55
56 Ringsberg, H., 2014. Perspectives on food traceability: a systematic literature review. Supply Chain
57 Management: an International Journal, 19(5/6), pp.558–576.
Jo
58
59
60 Ross, W., 2017. Widespread Mislabeling of Fish Means Consumers Are Eating a Lot of Bait and Switch
ur
na
l
up
1
2
p
3 Seafood [Online]. Available from: https://www.newsweek.com/2017/06/02/fish-consumers-
4
ly
5 fake-mislabeled-switched-seafood-crime-614060.html [Accessed 17 May 2019].
6
7 Saaty, T.L. and Ergu, D., 2015. When is a Decision-Making Method Trustworthy? Criteria for
Ch
8
9 Evaluating Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods. International Journal of Information
10
Technology & Decision Making, 14, pp.1171–1187.
ain
11
12
13 Saberi, S., Kouhizadeh, M., Sarkis, J. and Shen, L., 2019. Blockchain technology and its relationships
14
15 to sustainable supply chain management. International Journal of Production Research , 57(7),
Ma
16 pp.2117–2135.
17
18
19 Samaranayake, P., 2005. A conceptual framework for supply chain management: A structural
na
20
integration. Supply Chain Management, 10(1), pp.47–59.
21
22
23 Schoenherr, T. and Swink, M., 2012. Revisiting the arcs of integration: Cross-validations and
ge
24
extensions. Journal of Operations Management, 30, pp.99–115.
25
26
me
27 Schwägele, F., 2005. Traceability from a European perspective. Meat Science, 71, pp.164–173.
28
29 Segura-Velandia, D.M., Kaur, N., Conway, P.P., Whittow, W.G. and West, A.A., 2016. Towards
30
31 industrial internet of things: Crankshaft monitoring, traceability and tracking using RFID.
nt
32
Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 41, pp.66–77.
33
:a
34
35 Shafiq, A., Johnson, P.F., Klassen, R.D. and Awaysheh, A., 2017. Exploring the implications of supply
36
risk on sustainability performance. International Journal of Operations & Production
nI
37
38 Management, 37(10), pp.1386–1407.
39
40
nt
Spekman, R.E. and Sweeney II, P.J., 2006. RFID: from concept to implementation. International
41
42 Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 36(10), pp.736–754.
ern
43
44
45
Stake, R.E., 1995. The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
46
47 Tian, F., 2018. An Information System for Food Safety Monitoring in Supply Chains Based on Haccp,
ati
48
49 Blockchain and Internet of Things. WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
50
on
51 Treiblmaier, H., 2018. The Impact of the Blockchain on the Supply Chain : A Theory-Based Research
52
53 Framework and a Call for Action. Supply Chain Management: an International Journal, 23(6),
54 pp.545–559.
al
55
56
57 Tseng, J.H., Liao, Y.C., Chong, B. and Liao, S.W., 2018. Governance on the drug supply chain via gcoin
Jo
58 blockchain. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(6).

59
60
ur
na
l
up
1
2
p
3 Verhagen, J. and Welsh, I., 2017. How blockchain can help tackle deforestation [Online]. Available
4
ly
5 from: https://innovation-forum.co.uk/analysis.php?s=how-blockchain-can-help-tackle-
6
7 deforestation [Accessed 17 May 2019].
Ch
8
9 Verhoeven, P., Sinn, F. and Herden, T.T., 2018. Examples from Blockchain Implementations in
10
Logistics and Supply Chain Management: Exploring the Mindful Use of a New Technology.
ain
11
12 Logistics, 2(3), pp.1–19.
13
14
15 Wang, E.T.G. and Wei, H.-L., 2007. Interorganizational governance value creation: Coordinating for
Ma
16 information visibility and flexibility in supply chains. Decision Sciences, 38(4), pp.647–674.
17
18
19 Wang, Y., Hugh Han, J. and Beynon-Davies, P., 2019. Understanding blockchain technology for future
na
20
supply chains: a systematic literature review and research agenda. Supply Chain Management:
21
22 an International Journal, 24(1), pp.62–84.
23
ge
24
Wang, Y., Singgih, M., Wang, J. and Rit, M., 2019. Making sense of blockchain technology: How will it
25
26 transform supply chains? International Journal of Production Economics, 211, pp.221–236.
me
27
28
Wang, Z., Hu, H. and Zhou, W., 2017. RFID Enabled Knowledge-Based Precast Construction Supply
29
30 Chain. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 32(6), pp.499–514.
31
nt
32
Wei, H.-L. and Wang, E.T.G., 2010. The strategic value of supply chain visibility: increasing the ability
33
:a
34 to reconfigure. European Journal of Information Systems, 19(2), pp.238–249.

35
36
Wilhelm, M.M., Blome, C., Bhakoo, V. and Paulraj, A., 2016. Sustainability in multi-tier supply chains:
nI
37
38 Understanding the double agency role of the first-tier supplier. Journal of Operations
39
40 Management, 41(1), pp.42–60.
nt
41
42 Williams, B.D., Roh, J., Tokar, T. and Swink, M., 2013. Leveraging supply chain visibility for
ern
43
44 responsiveness: The moderating role of internal integration. Journal of Operations
45
46
Management, 31(7–8), pp.543–554.
47
ati
48 Wilson, T.P. and Clarke, W.R., 1998. Food safety and traceability in the agricultural supply chain:
49
50 Using the Internet to deliver traceability. Supply Chain Management, 3(3), pp.127–133.
on
51
52 Wu, H., Li, Z., King, B., Miled, Z. Ben, Wassick, J. and Tazelaar, J., 2017. A distributed ledger for supply
53
54 chain physical distribution visibility. Information (Switzerland), 8(4), pp.1–18.
al
55
56 Xiu, C. and Klein, K.K., 2010. Melamine in milk products in China: Examining the factors that led to
57
Jo
58 deliberate use of the contaminant. Food Policy, 35(5), pp.463–470.

59
60 Yang, J., 2014. Supply chain agility: Securing performance for Chinese manufacturers. International
ur
na
l
up
1
2
p
3 Journal of Production Economics, 150, pp.104–113. Available from:
4
ly
5
6 Yermack, D., 2017. Corporate Governance and Blockchains. Review of Finance, 21(1), pp.7–31.
7
Ch
8 Yin, R.K., 2014. Case study methods: Design and methods. 5th ed. Los Angeles, CA; London: SAGE.
9
10 Yu, T., Lin, Z. and Tang, Q., 2018. Blockchain: The Introduction and Its Application in Financial
ain
11
12 Accounting. The Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance, 29(4), pp.37–47.
13
14 Zelbst, P.J., Green, K.W., Sower, V.E. and Bond, P.L., 2019. The impact of RFID, IIoT, and Blockchain
15
Ma
16 technologies on supply chain transparency. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
17
18 Management, at print.
19
na
20 Zhao, J.L., Fan, S. and Yan, J., 2016. Overview of business innovations and research opportunities in
21
22 blockchain and introduction to the special issue. Financial Innovation, 2(1), pp.1–7.
23
ge
24 Zheng, Z., Xie, S., Dai, H.-N., Chen, X. and Wang, H., 2018. Blockchain Challenges and Opportunities:
25
26 A Survey. International Journal of Web and Grid Services, 14(4), pp.352–375.
me
27
28
29
30
31
nt
32
33
:a
34
35
36
nI
37
38
39
40
nt
41
42
ern
43
44
45
46
47
ati
48
49
50
on
51
52
53
54
al
55
56
57
Jo
58
59
60
ur
na
l
up
1
pl
2
3
yC
4
5
6
7
ha
8
9
10
11
in
12
13
14
M
15
16
an
17
18
19 Figure 1: structure of a blockchain
20
ag
21
22
23
em
24
25
26
27
en
28
29
30
t: a
31
32
33
34
nI
35
36
37
nt
38
39
40
er
41
42
43
na
44
45
46
tio
47
48
49
na
50
51
52
53
lJ
54
55
ou
56
57
58
59
r
60
na

Blockchain Case Studies in Supply Chain Visibility

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Blockchain Case Studies in Supply Chain Visibility

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Citation for published version:

Take down policy

Download date: 14. Mar. 2024

Supply-chain management, Supply Chain Vulnerability, Supply risk,

48 Information technology innovation is influenced by ideas relating to potential transformative effects

43 decentralised, consensus-based trust mechanism underpinning the technology (Hackius and

58 Customer demand (the market imperative)

20 therefore sets out to investigate this technology.

32 2.1 Company and background

48 2.3 System and benefits

55 3.3 System and benefits

55 4.3 System and benefits

chain digitisation (Abeyratne and Monfared 2016).

24 6.1 Theory implications

27 performance in supply chains. Supply Chain Management, 19(3), pp.306–321.

51 discourse analysis of Mexico’s international trade administration. Information Systems Journal,

58 Management Published online in Articles in Advance 27, at press., pp.1–18.

32 International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 47(1), pp.18–40.

51 Blockchain for Supply Chain Transparency. Logistics, 2(1), pp.2–13.

55 strategies. Journal of Operations Management, 19(2), pp.185–200.

37 supply chain. Supply Chain Management: an International Journal, at press..

41 uncertainty. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 18, pp.315–338.

management: Channel relationships and firm performance. Journal of the Academy of

37 Review, 65, pp.569–608.

41 International Journal of Information Management, 39, pp.80–89.

48 Engineering, 59(3), pp.183–187.

58 Accounting, Finance and Management, 24(4), pp.138–147.

Planning and Control, 17(1), pp.77–86.

blockchain consensus. Health Informatics Journal, pp.1–14.

41 European Review of Agricultural Economics, 40(1), pp.121–142.

58 blockchain. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(6).

34 to reconfigure. European Journal of Information Systems, 19(2), pp.238–249.

58 deliberate use of the contaminant. Food Policy, 35(5), pp.463–470.

You might also like